UK CPM / Glad overstay Claim Form

LewiiiD

Regarding cost schedule: Is it worth sending something alongside it? Explaining why I should be entitled to it etc?

KeithP

1. Acknowledgment of Service Form: 30 minutes. 1 hour

Check your sums.

30 mins = 1 hour :eek:

LewiiiD

:rotfl::rotfl: Thanks Keith. It's too late to be doing all this stuff.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for Gladstones email, change to 'show POSTS' and you should find it.

LewiiiD

Got it! Thanks

[Deleted User]

£140 for printing documents. Did you buy a new printer or something? At commercial B&W printing rates (£0.10 per sheet) that's 1,400 pages! Even a more generous allowance of £0.30 taking account of a deskjet means your bundle should total 460 pages, which would be unusual.

By all means submit a well costed schedule that accounts for the many hours you are likely to have spent. But if you engage in "bill padding" you will lose credibility.

LewiiiD

Well its funny you should say that. I did actually have to buy one, but ill adjust accordingly. Like you say an over exaggerated cost schedule could affect my credibility.

LewiiiD

C-M - further to your comments yesterday. How does this new shortened SA/ Crib sheet compare? Like you said short bullet points will help when in front of the Judge......

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Skeleton Argument
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]POFA Schedule 4 / Particular of Claims[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D WS – 6) PCN has no date for when notice was given & doesn’t specify period of parking. (Exhibit 3, D WS) [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D WS – 18) POC are sparse and lack detail (PD 16 7.5 & CPR 16.4.1(a))[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 23 a) the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. POFA 7.3, [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Case C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth CC) was struck out as Gladstones had failed to submit proper POC. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 23 b) POFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signage [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Denied that a contract was formed, there was an agreement to pay a parking charge & that there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 12) Signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. Sign is forbidding therefore cannot constitute an offer. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 12b) Lord Denning in Spurling vs Bradshaw Ltd [1956] – READ STATEMENT[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 12c) Signage doesn’t clearly set out the onerous terms of a parking charge notice as per Spurling vs Bradshaw[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 12d) Signage fails to meet requirements of POFA Sch 4. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 14) IPC Code of Practice – B.2.1/B2.2 (D WS 23 lists conditions)[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 16) IPC B.1.1[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Claimant hasn’t fully complied with obligations within IPC Code of Practice [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS no 13 – my Company’s authorization to operate / mange the relevant land on behalf of the Landowner (The evidence on page 6 of C’s WS shows that this isn’t true. The managing agent gave authorization not landowner). [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS no. 4 – Signage location, size, content and font has been audited by the IPC (D WS 20/21 would suggest this isn’t true).[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS point no. 5 – It is evident from the site plan that there is sufficient signs (site plan doesn’t show where signage is, just highlights the lack of entrance signage, D WS Exhibit 14,21,22 highlights how poor the signage is).[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS point no. 12 – The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous (I refer to D WS evidence Exhibit 12 which clearly contradicts this statement)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Keeper Liability [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS point 15 - The case of Elliot v Loake (1982) is once again cited by UK Car Park Management Ltd. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 20) Judge in Excel v Mr. X C8DP5C7T dismissed Elliot v Loake as it is doesn’t bare any weight in small claims court. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Claimant hasn’t fully complied with their obligations in Sch 4 POFA 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Closeness of Gladstones / IPC / IAS[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS point 21 – conflict of interest [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 24) Defendants research proves differently.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]IPC is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd (UTI 08248531)[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]IAS (08248531) is a trading style of UTI [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Until 28/05/17 UTI & therefore IPC directors were Mr. John Davies & Mr. William Hurley. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Until 28/05/17 Gladstones Solicitors directors were Mr. John Davies & Mr. William Hurley [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]There is obviously a clear conflict of interest as denied by Claimant.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]IPC and therefore IAS had clear financial motivation to ensure alleged debts were not overturned and were handled by Gladstones solicitors in court.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Alleged debt occurred on 09/02/17 prior to change of directorship. Therefore defendant argues that this be taken into account. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Clearly incestuous relationship between IPC, IAS and Gladstones Solicitors. [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]SRA Code of Practice 10 mandatory principles – flout points 2,3[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]SRA O(3.2)(A), O(3.2)(B), O(3.2)(D). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Current Debt / Cow-boy Operator [/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]C WS point 23 – Company staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of the debt (This is strongly refuted as POC are templates, forms are generic and Gladstone Solicitors have been reported to the SRA for their robo-claim practices)[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]D – 25) Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]D WS – 31) refer Judge to Parliamentary debate. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Final editing needs completing FYI
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Looks much better as a crib sheet for you.

Now to read up on Rights of Audience (RoA), assuming a legal rep rocks up who can be silenced with a wave of the Law Gazette article, and RoA case law, etc. Search the forum if not up to speed with this preliminary matter, which can end the case in 5 minutes flat.

LewiiiD

Thanks C-M

Feel much better actually with that condensed SA. Feels like it flows and goes through points against their WS.

Will look into RoA and that article you mentioned.

Thanks again for everything!!